Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?.Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!

The original offence took place in 2006 when Mrs Fielden was photographed by a speed camera driving at 36mph in a 30mph limit. A fixed penalty of £60 with the mandatory 3 penalty points was issued.

During hearings at Bradford Crown Court last June, expert witness Mr Theodorus Janssen, from Gatso, testified that being on a curve tighter than 1,200 metres would not affect the accuracy of the camera’s measurements and that the 1,200-metre-limit had been selected 'arbitrarily' by the Netherlands Measurement Institute (NMI). Despite the camera instructions not having been followed the Judge dismissed Mrs Fielden’s appeal.

Now evidence has arisen that suggests the expert witness changed his evidence.

Dr Fielden, a research scientist at Sheffield Hallam University, suspected that there must be very good reason for the instructions specifying 'a curve no tighter than 1,200 metres'. So he telephoned Mr Janssen, pretending to be a CPS lawyer and asked to double-check the technical details of the case. Fielden recorded the phone call, in which Mr Janssen laughingly says that the limit of 1,200 metres, far from being 'arbitrary', was 'scientifically calculated' by Janssen himself, on the basis that the camera’s accuracy would be unacceptably poor on any tighter curve. He added that NMI had only checked and approved his calculations.

The recording has been submitted to the High Court as part of a Judicial Review. The file also contained information that Janssen’s services were effectively supplied on a no-win, no-fee basis – a breach of Criminal Procedure Rules, which require Expert Witnesses to be independent. Moreover, Janssen was instructed by RSS Ltd, a firm set up by ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers), with help from the CPS, to co-ordinate the “independent evidence” and the prosecution of motorists who challenge speed camera technology.

We will be following this story with interest. It demonstrates yet again that the law is far from all fair and that unless you are willing to risk a great deal in defending yourself it is often easier to accept blame even though you may be innocent.

Comments

Posted by culzean on Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:33 pm

The whole of our legal system is based on the fact that it is easier for most people to accept the penalty than challenge it. Last year my wifes ex-boss was caught by a gatso doing 47mph in a 30 limit and he was also using his phone. He was already on 9 points, but he 'got away with it' because he was rich enough to employ a solicitor.

In the UK we have plenty of law, but very little Justice.

Posted by MickyFinn on Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:40 pm

Those who read about speedcameras may remember a website called notsoaccurrate where a chap devised a device that measured the timing of the flashes on the speedcamera to check they were operating within Home Office guidelines and therefore within the law.

David Edgar proved that the tests he conducted showed the Gatsos to be inaccurate and operating outside guidelines.

He was also an expert witness on a number of cases where councils tarmaced over lines to hide evidence etc.

What a shame. That would explain why I drew a blank. Unless someone else puts together a laser aligned, optically triggered digital timer that is capable of measuring the time lapse between the two flashes which are produced by a Gatsometer speed camera to within 1/100th of a second we'll never know.

The notsoaccurate domain name has expired and could become anything in the future!

Posted by royl666 on Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:59 pm

Seems to me the judge needs a kick up the backside. ALL speed measuring devices have to be licensed by the Home Office and the license lays down how they should be used. In the case of GATSO units they MUST be on a straight stretch of road of at least 400 metres as they can react to reflections from vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.

In Hertfordshire the Police do not defend cases where this issue is raised on prosecutions using evidence from cameras on the A1057 between Hatfield and St Albans. A friends neighbour used to maintain the cameras and I got this snippett from him - it's not heresay.

To put it simply, if the camera is not installed in accordance with the license conditions then any evidence obtained from it is inadmissable! This was the case with the microwave cameras installed on the M25 some years back as they were only licensed for single installations - not multiple units as used in the vaiable speed zone.

Just as an aside. if a mobile speed unit is parked on the pavement then unless the officer operating the device has a pavement closure order he is obtaining evidence illegally and that's inadmissible as well!

If you want chapter and verse on all things speed camera then go to http://www.acpo.police.uk and click on policies - my spies teel me the document is being reviewed at the monent, but it'll be back there soon - so keep watching

Posted by REDDISCO on Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:13 pm

Lines have been repainted on the road at a angle to before, (interesting)

Posted by Darren on Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:33 pm

royl666 Wrote:

Seems to me the judge needs a kick up the backside. ALL speed measuring devices have to be licensed by the Home Office and the license lays down how they should be used. In the case of GATSO units they MUST be on a straight stretch of road of at least 400 metres as they can react to reflections from vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.

Almost. As testified in this case, they can be on bends so long as the curve is no greater than 1,200m.

This is GATSO's own installation criteria. The Judge threw out the appeal as a result of the expert evidence that this 1,200m had no scientific basis.

As this 'expert' has now contradicted himself and possibly even perjured himself the case now goes to Judicial Review. Let's see what the High Court makes of an expert witness who tells the court one story and a person he thought was the CPS another, could be interesting!

Darren Griffin - Editor

Posted by M8TJT on Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:07 pm

royl666 Wrote:

A friends neighbour used to maintain the cameras and I got this snippett from him - it's not heresay.

Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?.Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!